Corpusfishing.com

[The Trash Heap]

Thought these might help. I'm the culprit suggesting they close another beach at the end.


1. Q. Who is circulating these petitions?

A. It's being done by the Beach Access Coalition (BAC), a very diverse group of scientists, fishers, surfers, environmentalists, and other concerned citizens who drive and park on the public beaches of Texas. While these people have common goals, individually they often have very different reasons for seeking them. A few members have been citizen activists in the past, but the majority had never been involved in a petition drive before participating in one opposing a smaller beach ban late last year.

2. Q. Why are there two different petitions?

A. The Corpus Christi City Council passed two ordinances last March. One ordinance would ban vehicles on approximately 7200 feet of public beach between the south jetty of Packery Channel and Padre Balli Park. The other ordinance nominally calls for a city election in April 2007 to approve a city charter amendment automatically giving citizens a vote if the city proposes more restrictions to vehicles on the beach in the future. One of the BAC's petitions is for a referendum so the citizens may also vote to affirm or overturn the existing ban, while the other petition is for an initiative for a similar but differently-worded city charter amendment.

3. Q. If one of the ordinances already provides Corpus Christi voters control over future bans on vehicular access, why does the BAC want something else?

A. The charter amendment the city wrote is full of loopholes. It's anti-competitive, for it does not apply to the 7200-foot ban created by the other ordinance, thus giving the developers of property adjacent to the 7200 feet an unfair advantage over other developers. It's vulnerable, for the amendment is voided if someone, such as another developer, legally challenges that unfair advantage, or if the voters overturn the 7200-foot ban. It also has exceptions so vague that the voters may see extensive future beach bans over which they have no say.

4. Q. How is the BAC's proposed charter amendment different from the city's?

A. Assuming its petition for the referendum and the referendum itself are successful, the BAC's charter amendment would require future beach restrictions in that 7200-foot beach segment to face the same vote as other areas. Legal challenges to that could not be mounted based on the theory that they are unfair, since the ordinance would apply to all equally. Because the BAC amendment is being put before voters by way of an initiative petition and not a referendum petition, the city cannot by rescinding its charter amendment scuttle the BAC's petition drive, as it did to the BAC's drive last December. Finally, the BAC chose wording directly from existing city codes that clarify the exemptions to restrict them to emergency situations and to require that the bans they allow are as small and as brief as possible.

5. Q. Since there are so many miles of beach outside of the 7200-foot ban area, why isn't the BAC satisfied with that remainder?

A. Part of the BAC's issue with that particular area involves the loss of access to the south side of Packery Channel, where during and after the campaign to finance and approve the channel's reopening the taxpayers, local and national, were promised parking, a bathhouse, restrooms, and paved walkways adjacent to and on the jetty and channel revetments. To satisfy the demands of a resort developer, the city decided to forgo these promises, which appeared in the city's website and in the Corps of Engineers' Environmental Impact Statement. Worse still, $900,000 of the Packery Channel Tax Increment Finance (TIF) funds which were supposed to be reserved for building these recreational amenities and maintenance of the channel have instead so far been obligated for building a parking lot and access ramp thousands of feet from Packery Channel, and there is talk of spending another $1,660,000 to construct another concrete seawall as a tram route between the channel and the existing seawall that caused extensive beach erosion in the past. The BAC wants the amenities promised with the TIF, and points out that it would be far simpler and cheaper to drive up to the south jetty on the beach to reach them.

The other part of the BAC's concern is the "slippery slope" factor. If any beach is closed to vehicles to satisfy the demands of a developer, it becomes impossible to withhold similar satisfaction from other developers.

6. Q. Isn't the BAC willing to compromise?

A. Yes. The BAC considers partially closing the 7200-foot ban area with rows of bollards, just as been done at the beaches at Bob Hall Pier and in Port Aransas, to be acceptable. This would allow for through vehicular traffic on the beach, while allowing separate lanes for parking and pedestrians.

7. Q. What about those who complain they want the more natural outdoor experience and safety afforded by a pedestrian-only beach?

A. That exact experience is already available a few miles to the north and south at Mustang Island State Park and at Malaquite Beach in the Padre Island National Seashore. If the complainers aren't satisfied with these locations, then it's suggested they ask the city to close another stretch of beach where there are currently no proposed adjacent developments, thus avoiding the "slippery slope" and the aesthetic impact of human construction. One BAC member has even noted that since the area of beach between Zahn Road and the state park is critical habitat for the threatened piping plover, perhaps banning driving there would satisfy both these complaints while helping to recover the species.
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!

[Dexter]

That is a great summary of what is happening. Thanks for the detailed information. I hope and wish all the voters in the Corpus area could read your post. How do we get them to check this web site message board. Will the Caller Times paper print your sticky?
_________________
Pinsbeach

><(((*> ~.~.~ ><(((*> ~.~.~ ><(((*>

[The Trash Heap]

2006 PETITION SIGNING PLACES

AC&V RADIATOR SERVICE 3601 Agnes 994-6547

ALOE TILE WORKS 301 Kinney 888-8119

ANTHONY’S AVEDA CONCEPT
SALON & DAY SPA 817 Everhart 991-4890

THE BAIT BUCKET 10649 SPID 939-7311

BARTON STREET PUB 10618 SPID 949-3167

BLACK DIAMOND OYSTER BAR 7202 SPID 992-2432

BREAKAWAY TACKLE, INC. 13941 SPID 949-8083

CLEM’S MARINA 13304 SPID 949-8445

COLUMBIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY 218 Omaha 888-9101

$1.89 CLEANERS 14493 SPID 949-7733

FLOYD’S CHRISTIAN
RESTAURANT 9502 SPID 937-1164

GRAYBAR ELECTRIC COMPANY,
INC. 1402 Laredo 886-4100

ISLAND ITALIAN RESTAURANT 15370 SPID 949-7737

JERRY B’S KAYAK SALES
AND RENTALS 9906 SPID 937-5340

JESSE’S FINE SPIRITS 13947 SPID 949-8961

JUANITO’S RESTAURANT at 5858 SPID
SUNRISE MALL FOOD MART

MID COAST ELECTRIC 4533 Baldwin 882-2585

PADRE CLEANERS 1209 Waldron Road 937-3773

PADRE ISLAND SUPPLY INC 9830 SPID 937-1473

PARADISE AUTO TOW 5745 Agnes 814-2886

PELICAN LOUNGE 14330 SPID 949-8222

PETS ETC 4342 S. Staples 906-0142

PILAR ECLECTIC JEWLELRY 32 Lamar Park Center 853-7176

PRO CLEANERS 2420 Airline 980-0882

PRO CLEANERS 14493 SPID 949-7733

PRO CLEANERS 1209 Waldron 937-3773

QUIZNO’S SUB 3823 S. Staples 814-7927

RED DOT PIER 11801 SPID 937-5347

ROYS BAIT & TACKLE
OUTFITTERS 7613 SPID 992-2960

TIRE AND LUBE EXPRESS 1607 S. Staples 887-8473

TROPICAL SHADE & SHUTTER 901 Airline 991-8906

TURNER’S GARDENLAND 6503 SPID 991-9002

Z-TECH AUTO RUSTPROOFING 3736 W.O.W. 855-7878
AND ACCESSORIES
_________________
The Trash Heap Has Spoken!
NNYYAAAHH!!!